Obama's EPA Quashes Climate Change Science »
Posted By zaph22 4 months, 1 week ago in Political NewsThe Competitive Enterprise Institute has obtained an EPA study of the "endangerment" to human well-being ostensibly caused by carbon dioxide emissions, together with a set of EPA emails indicating that the study, which concludes that carbon dioxide is not a significant cause of climate change, was suppressed by the EPA for political reasons.
Read Full Story at powerlineblog.com »
430 Views Share Story 46 Comments Report
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 46 (view all)
-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well Zaph:
Reply
I read the report; most of it was over my head.
But I did find this article that refutes it.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009...
This is over my head too.
So I did some dumb carpenter math.
If my figuring is correct…the average amount per person of oil burned in this country is enough to bring 31,111 gallons of water from 68 degrees to boiling each day.
Or enough to boil a pool 25’x 25’ x 6’-6” per person.-
100%
flyonthewallzz4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Barrels per day………………20,000,000
Reply
BTU's per Barrel………………5,600,000
BTU's per day………112,000,000,000,000
Population………………………3,000,000
BTU's Per person per day……….37,333,333
Cubic feet per day per person @ 1 degree… 597,333
212 degrees - 68 degrees
Cubic feet per day per person brought from 68 degrees to boiling point
4,148
Size of pool 25' x 25' x 6'-6"
Gallons in the pool 31,111
Pounds of CO2 per billion BTU of energy:
Coal……………. 208,000 pounds
Oil………………164,000 pounds
Natural Gas………………117,000 pounds
United States — Area: 9,161,923 SQ KM
9,184,000-tons of CO2 per day from oil only.
There are 8.741 scf in one pound of CO2
1 square kilometers = 10,763,910.4 square foot
Now my figuring could be wrong…but I figure we lay a 1/64”+ blanket of Co2 over this country each day. Or in a Euclidian world it would be a little thicker than 7” over the course of a year.
Now that does not take into account cows farting, or burning coal, I believe we burn and fart enough to contribute a measurable amount. -
100%
flyonthewallzz4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And even if we don’t…so what!..we are the 3rd largest oil producer in the world yet we import more than ½ of it. (More than 52% of the mining and petroleum interests in this country are foreign owned) Most of the countries we get it from get a huge percentage of their revenue from our pockets. And I would hardly call them friends.
Reply
I find it strange that we have seen a more than doubling the cost of this energy lately, and for some reason folks do not peg that cost as one of the things that has brought down this economy. Yet the folks that are silent… holler… that making significant steps away from our dependence on fossil fuels will wreck our economy. -
100%
nostalgia4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fly
Reply
Read his report - you can get to it from his web page
http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/
Here is Carlin's educational background:
Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
B.S., Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
-
-
-
67%
k9kssr4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I watched a video of one of my congressmen today. He's very upset that this study, showing global warming is a myth, has been withheld by the EPA. People ought to be able to hear both sides of an argument. He's mad as hell and he ain't gonna take it. Even the sole dem from my state voted against the climate change bill.
Reply
I'm all for conservation, developing alternative energy sources, and kicking our dependence on foreign oil, but how does the climate change bill help?-
-
50%
QuailMan4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This study doesn't show global warming to be a myth. It simply shows that CO2 is not the sole, determining factor in the increase of temperatures worldwide.
Reply
Global warming is an empirically measured, statistically proven fact. The earth is heating up. The question is not whether it is, but why it is.
As someone who has been a student and researcher in geophysics since pre-Inconvenient Truth days, I find statements like yours troubling. I understand there are many sources of material out there with many different and opposing viewpoints, but it takes little reason or sense to compare temperature data from the past with that of the present. And, unlike ten years ago, you can now even see the effects. Look at the readily visible examples of the receding Arctic and Antarctic ice fields.
And, as a final note, CO2 has long been low on the list of global warming factors. This report adds almost nothing to any kind of discussion, other than an opportunity to dismiss the issue entirely.
-
-
50%
mesodude4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow...Cons have really twisted up the anti-GW propaganda machine several notches in the last couple of months. There used to be a fake anti-gw story maybe once or twice per week. Now they're being paid to turn tricks for the energy companies by the hour. They've gone from crying that no one was paying attention to their bribed scientists to an all out fear n smear campaign. Just like the insurance lobby, they are terrified the GOP gravy train is a comin to a grinding halt. ;-(
Reply -
75%
Georgia504 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's the two-part liberal paradigm at work here:
Reply
ANY use of the environment outside THEIR control is ipso facto abuse of the environment.
Any ABUSE of the environment by them is ipso facto responsible use of the environment.
Any exception to the above merely proves the rule. -
60%
THOMNH624 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
it is very simple, man made global warming is a myth. in the 70,s it was man made global colling and the onset of another ice age, now it is the world is melting. man has no control over the sun it's solar storms or it's rotation in relationship to the earth.
Reply -
100%
Tangent0014 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Um, the authors of the report, Carlin and Davidson, are economists, not climatologists. The unsolicited report is largely a regurgitation of the same 'denier' arguments that have been floating around the web for the past few years.
Reply
In addition, it is untrue that the report was 'ignored', even though Carlin was apparently doing this work when he should have been busy at the job for which he was hired at the EPA.
“Certain opinions were expressed by an individual [Carlin] who is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue,” said EPA spokesperson Adora Andy.
“Nevertheless, several of the opinions and ideas proposed by this individual were submitted to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. Additionally, his manager allowed his general views on the subject of climate change to be heard and considered inside and outside the EPA and presented at conferences and at an agency seminar. The individual was also granted a request to join a committee that organizes an ongoing climate seminar series, open to both agency and outside experts, where he has been able to invite speakers with a full range of views on climate science. The claims that his opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false.”
The CEI claims Carlin's work shows the warming is due to solar and ocean cycles, but when asked to produce the data for review, their General Council's response was: “On the question of whether we have a copy of any version of the report—sorry, but at this time all I can say is no comment,” Kazman wrote in an email.
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-24-scant-evid... -
-
-
100%
zaph224 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
kind of like when the planet began cooling a decade or so back the libs changed the name of the problem they wanted us to see, went from calling it global warming since that wasn't right, and started calling it climate change.
Reply
And back to an earlier post... "Neither John Carlin nor John Davidson, the two authors of the draft that never found its way into the published EPA report, are climate scientists" first that isn't true, but nice try, and even if it were true, is Al Gore a climate scientist? If not why believe a word he says on the subject? Since you clearly think only someone that is a climate scientist is someone to believe, and fortunately for the authors of this report, you were wrong about their credentials anyway.-
Neutral
Tangent0014 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Al Gore is a spokesman, not a scientists, that is true. But the data he presents has been peer-reviewed and repeatedly confirmed by the IPCC, NOAA, NASA, etc.
Reply
Neither Carlin nor Davidson are climate scientists, nor have they provided any direct peer-reviewed data to support their assertions.
-
-
More News
Politics Daily
'Iron Chef' Comes to the White House
12 Dead at Ft. Hood: Worst Soldier-on-Soldier Violence in U.S. History
2 New Democrats To Be Sworn In Before Health Care Vote
Senate Kills Vitter Amendment to Include Citizenship Question on Census Forms
Old Truck For New Truck the Most Common Cash-For-Clunker Trade
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.